I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
Document: draft-ietf-forces-protoextension-04.txt
Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
Review Date: 2014-08-07
IETF LC End Date: 2014-08-13
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: Almost ready
--------
Minor issues:
-------------
"3. Protocol Update Proposal
This section describes proposals..."
Actually, these are not proposals: they are normative updates.
-------------
The Abstract says "This documents updates both RFC 5810 and RFC 7121 semantics..."
but this is not repeated in the Introduction, and the text makes no further
reference to RFC 7121. The text should state what is updated in RFC 7121.
-------------
In Appendix A of RFC 7121, I find this statement:
"The xml has been validated against the schema defined in [RFC5812]."
Is that also true of the new version? If so, it should be stated. If not,
there could be a problem...
Nits:
-----
Abbreviations FE and CE should be expanded when first used.
-----
"3.2.1. New Codes
EXTENDEDRESULT-TLV Result Value is 32 bits and is a superset of RFC
5810 Result TLV Result Value. The new version code space is 32 bits
as opposed to the RFC 5810 code size of 8 bits. The first 8 bit
values are common to both old "
The last sentence is truncated. And do you mean "the first 256 code
values are common..."?
-----
There are quite a lot of small grammatical errors (missing articles etc.)
which I assume will be caught by the RFC Editor. There are also various
examples of convoluted phrasing that could surely be shorter and simpler.
For example, I found the following sentence in section 2.1 very hard to
understand:
"Implementation experience has shown that existing approaches for
retrieving or deleting a sizeable number of table rows is at the
programmatically level (from an application point of view)
unfriendly, tedious, and abusive of both compute and bandwidth
resources."
Does this mean
Implementation experience has shown that existing approaches for
retrieving or deleting a sizeable number of table rows are
inefficient.
or something more subtle?
-----
Is the RFC Editor supposed to remove the "XXX: comment to IANA..." sentences?
If so, this should be clearly stated.